Talk:Signal box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of the Operations task force.

Hi everybody, since this page was unsightly I created a separate article for North American Interlocking towers.--JackLumber 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to Merge Interlocking_tower to Signal_box

I think there is not large difference between interlocking_tower and signal_box, and interlocking_tower is special one type of signal_box. So, I suggest to merge Interlocking_tower to Signal_box, and make Interlocking_tower section in Signal_box.Penpen0216 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be just one article. The first remark on this talk page explains why there are currently two separate articles. Signalhead 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Interlocking Towers are American. Signal Boxes are British. There is a difference between the British and American interlocking plants and procedures. 73, Knuckles, Jr., a railroad conductor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.151.215 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

They are essentially the same thing. There needs to be an article that presents a worldwide perspective on the subject. Signalhead 17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Signalhead - they are the same thing, they both have rows of interlocked levers, they both have people in them, they both have the people pulling said levers. Wongm (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

In my opinion, most of the external links should be removed. A couple of the sites are concerned with railway signalling generally, not specifically about signal boxes. These links are duplicated on more appropriate articles. Then there are all those websites for preserved signal boxes (which I suspect have been put there by volunteers involved in their preservation). All these tend to give an impression that signal boxes are a relic of the past, whereas the reality is that far more remain in active service than in preservation. Signalhead (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the links should stay. (I admit up front that I am biased since one of the links is mine). But I look at it from the point of view of a reader/researcher looking at the article. Whether it is the intention or not, I think it is reasonable to assume that the "Signal Box" article will attract readers who are interested in both active and historic boxes. Would they want the links there: yes/no? I know we don’t want an endless directory of signal boxes but there is some automatic “selection” here. The links point to pages that someone has gone to the trouble of creating. This means that the box must be significant in some way (at least to some people). It also means that there is someone to ask about it if the researcher wants to investigate further. Historic Boxes are also likely to be more physically accessible to a researcher if they want to visit. So I think that, if asked, virtually all readers/researchers would say: “Please don’t remove the links – they are a valuable source of Further Reading for me”. Hpmaster (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Of course, you are quite correct to say that these websites could be of interest to somebody who reads this article. However, I'm sure that I could find a hundred other websites that might also be of interest. Please consider the bigger picture: This article could be read by English-speaking people all over the world. How relevant is a specific preserved signal box in England likely to be to someone reading this article in Australia or South Africa? If you went into a bookshop and bought an encyclopedia, would you expect to find Highams Park signal box mentioned?

Secondly, if you have a personal interest in the preserved signal box at Highams Park, then you adding a link to its website could be viewed as a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to give free publicity to your favourite cause or heritage project, no matter how worthy it may be.

Please refer to Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. Signalhead (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Signalhead, may I as a very occasional contributor to this article support you in this? I feel that the authority of the piece is undermined by links to local projects, of purely local interest and with nothing to add to the topic as a whole. Some heavy pruning is definitely in order. This could even stretch to some of the pictures in the gallery, which seem a bit UK-centric at the moment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My view is that there are too many external links to purely local signal box sites (usually a preservation-related group). If a particular signal box is notable then it should have its own article in Wikipedia, and of course an external link is then in order. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! I seem to be in a minority here. I have taken off the link that I added to the Highams Park Signal Box. I decided that it should be myself that had the duty of administering the coup de gras. I think it would have wanted it that way. Me and my poor unloved signal box wander off alone into the sunset..... Hpmaster (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unloved, while such dedicated users as Hpmaster retain an interest. Thanks for the truly noble, sacrificial gesture!--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)